Debates of June 5, 2006 (day 5)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So they will be able to issue tickets. Will those regulations be changed in time for this season, or is it something we’re going to have to wait for until next year? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They’ll be ready for this season and of course we appreciate the willingness of Members to expedite this legislation. That is what has allowed us to do this. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few general comments and some questions, Mr. Chairman. Obviously it’s not too difficult to support the intent and the content of what this bill is trying to achieve. I think that I don’t know exactly what incident or incidents may have given a rise to this amendment in a way that it had to be done in a very expeditious manner. I wasn’t purview to the GED committee who probably got some more detailed information, but I can think of situations that have happened in Yellowknife at the Fred Henne Park last summer that could probably speak to the merits of such a bill.

I just want to state that this bill is going through somewhat of an irregular process in that we’re passing this bill through three stages without the benefit of a public hearing process and I don’t mean to sound too conventional or conservative, but I take very seriously the convention and protocol of our legislative process. There are good reasons why we have a public hearing process, obviously. Every one of these bills that we pass through this House has implications for the public. We are passing laws and discussing laws that would impact members of the public in one way or another, and hopefully all of them are for the public interest and public benefit, but I think it’s important to note that this is going through a irregular process and it could be…I think it does speak to the importance that the Members are placing on this bill, but also it may speak to a lack of preparation on the part of the department somewhat.

This is the third year into our Legislature and I have to tell you that the Members on this side have been just waiting, dying for some legislative food to chew on. So I could assure you that had any bills like this have come in time, you know, we would have been happy to take it on the road. But to be fair to the department, I could turn that into a question and see if the Minister could state for the record here, are there some specific incidents that may have prompted this action at this time. The Member from Kam Lake stated that this is something that is very long overdue. So I don’t know exactly what the picture is that prompted this. I think from the general point of view I’m actually surprised that the park officers did not until now, through this bill, that they didn’t have the power to ticket people for some of the misbehaviours or wrongdoings or something more serious. So that’s my first question.

The second question I would like to ask is, would the park officers need to get training or any additional equipment? Would this need extra resources or would there be need for more officers to do their job, all of which I am prepared to entertain but about which I know very little.

I know there were situations in Fred Henne Park last summer where someone was attacked by quite a vicious dog. It could be that with the rise of crime in the city, there might be more activities going on in the park that might require more resources and more training by the parks officers. I don’t know. The Minister could tell me that everything is fine the way things are, but I just want to give the Minister an opportunity to explain the state of affairs for the work of parks officers in these changing times. Things do change and it’s important that our public servants and the people who uphold our laws and enforce our laws are properly equipped and properly trained and given the resources necessary.

My next question and my last has to do with what the extent of fines or any tickets would consist of. The Minister mentioned earlier that part of this bill will be dealt with by way of regulation, but he’s also stated that those are written already. I would just like to get an idea of what the members of the public would be looking at in terms of tickets they can get for different levels of misbehaviour, if the Minister could itemize for me the activities that will come under the purview of this legislation and the sorts of things that will be subject to fines and enforcement by the park officers.

I think those are my four questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Minister Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions there. There was no one specific incident that lead to us deciding that it made sense to come forward and provide this tool for our parks officers, but with increased activity levels around our major centres, there has been an escalation of unruly behaviour at some of our parks that has been troubling. There is a trend here over the past couple of years, as I mentioned in my response from Mr. Ramsay. There have been a number of things that we have been doing to try to alleviate this. This is simply one more tool that we are providing our parks officers. Could this have happened earlier and come forward sooner? It probably could have. I do appreciate Members willing to be cooperative and expedite this so we had it in time for this season, which I think was important.

The question about new training, really there will be some new training required but only in the area of how to appropriately issue tickets under the Summary Convictions Procedures Act. So the rest of the training that our parks officers undergo still holds. Having said that, I think we always continue to evaluate the training that we have our officers go through and continue to upgrade that and make sure it is still relevant and make sure it takes into account the kinds of situations parks officers are seeing in our territorial parks.

Maximum fines under the Summary Convictions Procedures Act is $200 and that could be exceeded in court, but $200 is the amount. I think that gets to most of the questions the Member has asked.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may just squeeze in another question on that, could the Minister provide information on what in the Territorial Parks Act…I am understanding that this amendment will allow the parks officers to issue tickets, but I am understanding that they are going to do that on the basis of what’s already written or are we writing regulations that would state what the offending acts are; for too much partying for all hours or going to the next camp. I don’t know. Perhaps unruly or drunken behaviour, violence, either graded system of behaviours that would fall under these enforcement measures. If I could just get those details, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the current act, the powers of a parks officer currently, they can order a person to desist from an action or a conduct if in the opinion of that officer: 1) it’s dangerous to life or property; 2) interferes unduly with the enjoyment of the park by others; 3) bothers or damages the natural environment in the park. So they can issue these orders, but what we are trying to do is provide an additional tool, more teeth, a $200 fine or hopefully just the threat of a fine. The intent here is this would be a deterrent, Mr. Chairman. So that’s the difference. They already have the powers to make these orders. This would simply be a fine added for non-compliance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a note of caution to the Minister. The provisions, as he’s just read to us, are pretty broad and it really leaves a lot of room to the judgment of the parks officers. That’s okay, but sometimes we may need narrow confines in the interest of the parks officers, so if anybody challenges them, they have the force of the law or regulations that they can refer to and present to the people who may object to being fined or charged because they are interfering with the natural environment. I guess this would be a whole new area for the parks officers to get into once they get into giving notices. I guess the regulations will iron that out. I just wanted to put a note of caution here, that there may be a need to put more resources for the officers to enforce these, because I think they may be subject to more challenges or more resources being spent too thin. I think the extra responsibilities they are being asked to take on, so perhaps the GED committee will receive this information later on. I just want to make sure the Minister will provide the resources necessary. It may be necessary for the Minister and officials to narrow down the…I mean put more guidelines and policy framework to assist the parks officers who will have to implement these enforcement provisions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The orders are suitably broad to allow us to deal with the circumstances or issues that may come up. It’s always up to the parks officers to exercise good judgment. I guess if somebody feels that the order has been unreasonable, the ticket issued has been unreasonable, they are well within their rights to contest that in court and to not pay it and to go to court. So in terms of additional resources, we don’t believe that that is necessary at this point. Currently if an order is given and it isn’t adhered to or isn’t followed, we end up having our parks officers call the RCMP to have the behaviour dealt with. We feel that this is simply one additional tool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two questions. I was thinking about this bill here. Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated about the safety and enjoyment. I guess we have come to this point in the Territories where we have to enforce the safety and enjoyment because people in our parks don’t respect the communities or the municipalities or the park that they are supposed to enjoy. Now we have parks officers who now have to get tough on them and adhere to the rules in our parks here.

I have two questions. The first question is in terms of the training for the protection of the parks and the park officers down the Mackenzie River right from Inuvik down to Yellowknife. Is minimum training going to happen with all the park officers, or will this be part of their job or skill training while they are in school or minimum training for park officers to get a sense of what this bill will allow them to do? It talks about territorial parks up in Inuvik and down in this region. I am not sure if it’s in parks in our regions in terms of who is going to enforce this. Are the only issues around Yellowknife and Prelude Lake, as has been mentioned and parks in this area here? That is my first question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Bell.

Mr. Chairman, we do have a standard requirement for parks officers for the training that they have to take. Of course, that training is updated depending on the case. It’s updated as required and often annually. We do have a compliance protocol with ENR that applies to all of our parks across the territory. So that is in effect in all of our territorial parks. I hope that answers the question.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Mr. Yakeleya.

Just one more. I am looking more now at the protection of these park officers in the North here. This is more of a…I think he answered it under Ms. Lee’s comment, so I don’t think I will ask this question here.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be quick. A few years ago I started advocating this problem that constituents of mine had unruly behaviour next to them in the parks and whatnot. There were fires and people cutting down trees, creating trash. While they were out in a lawful way enjoying the use of their property, people were shooting guns at them. It was noted the difficulty of having the RCMP bolt out of the city of Yellowknife to an area about 45 minutes outside of the city and getting there in a timely way. The difficulty, as I saw it, was they weren’t being protected by some type of enforcement process. It seemed that the government was turning a blind eye to it because they had no mechanism in there to do anything with it.

I am glad to see that the Minister and the department truly did hear the concerns from the point of view of my constituents, which was that there was a serious problem out there going on in our parks and that something needed to be done about that type of behaviour. So the Minister, in responding to the problem, struck a discussion group and I remember being at the very first meeting where he had the RCMP, MACA, Transportation, as well as his officials and several others from other areas. I am glad to see that that discussion group had some type of observation that is turning into results.

As I see this, it is an intent to ensure public safety and put a priority on public assistance first, because the issue here is that if they are not in a safe area, that’s not very fair. We have lawful constituents out there trying to enjoy the activity of what lawful citizens do while people were putting their safety in jeopardy.

If someone would say government is being swift on this and maybe not going to the fullest reach of consultation, I guess government being swift is probably normally an oxymoron. I would definitely say this is something that the public would say why couldn’t you constitute this pretty quickly. We are giving teeth, assurances and tools to our parks officers to do the jobs that they need to do, so they are out there to deal with the problems to ensure law-abiding citizens are safe.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, although this probably won’t solve every problem out there, I can tell you right now that my constituents who I have talked to about this problem will be elated to see that government is certainly responding to their needs from a public safety point of view. They will certainly be very happy to see that we are finally listening to the average citizen and ensuring that we are responding to their needs and I am just glad to say that I am proud of that. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member is speaking of a lot of the work that as a government with a number of stakeholder departments and the RCMP, we came together after the urging of a number of Ingraham Trail residents to deal with some of the concerns specifically on the Ingraham Trail. So we are doing a number of things and I referenced them earlier when responding to Mr. Ramsay. We do have more of a police presence; we do have more involvement and more participation, cooperation with DOT officials who are driving that road quite frequently. Essentially, we have raised this up on the radar and they are working to try to make a difference on the Ingraham Trail and we think we are having great success. I appreciate the Member’s support of that initiative. The specific thing that we are proposing here today really only applies to territorial parks, but I would say that some of the concerns along the Ingraham Trail obviously have been troubling. We have been working very hard to try to correct those. This is one more tool that gives us some recourse within our own territorial parks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Further general comments? Is committee agreed to go clause by clause?

Agreed.

Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act, clause 1.

Agreed.

Clause 2.

Agreed.

Bill as a whole.

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 5 is ready for third reading?

Agreed.

Bill 5 is now ready for third reading. Mr. Minister, thanks a lot to you and your witnesses. Thank you very much. Please escort the witnesses out. Thank you. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we report progress.

The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

I will now rise and report progress. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act; Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act; Committee Report 3-15(5); and Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act, and would like to report progress with four motions being adopted, that Committee Report 3-15(5) is concluded, that Bills 3 and 5 are ready for third reading and that Bill 4 is ready for third reading, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Do we have a seconder? The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Orders of the day for Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.:

Prayer

Ministers' Statements

Members' Statements

Returns to Oral Questions

Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery

Oral Questions

Written Questions

Returns to Written Questions

Replies to Opening Address

Petitions

Reports of Standing and Special Committees

Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion

Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills

Motions

First Reading of Bills

- Bill 9, Write-off of Assets Act

Second Reading of Bills

- Bill 6, Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act

- Bill 7, Pharmacy Act

- Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

- Bill 10, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2006-2007

- Bill 11, Tourism Act

- Bill 12, Garnishment Remedies Statutes

Amendment Act

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

- Committee Report 4-15(5), Progress Report on

Priorities and Objectives (2006)

- Bill 1, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4,

2005-2006

- Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1,

2006-2007

Report of Committee of the Whole

Third Reading of Bills

Orders of the Day

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.

---ADJOURNMENT

The House adjourned at 17:33 p.m.